A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorJohansen, Marit
dc.contributor.authorRada G., Gabriel
dc.contributor.authorRosenbaum, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorPaulsen, Elizabeth
dc.contributor.authorMotaze, Nkengafac V.
dc.contributor.authorOpiyo, Newton
dc.contributor.authorWiysonge, Charles S.
dc.contributor.authorDing, Yunpeng
dc.contributor.authorMukinda, Fidele K.
dc.contributor.authorOxman, Andrew D.
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-16T20:11:42Z
dc.date.available2019-10-16T20:11:42Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.date.updated2019-10-14T18:48:59Z
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple ‘Google-style’ search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip. Methods We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements. Results A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence. Conclusions PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry 17 April 2015. Registration number: ISRCTN12742235 .Abstract Background A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple ‘Google-style’ search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip. Methods We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements. Results A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence. Conclusions PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry 17 April 2015. Registration number: ISRCTN12742235 .Abstract Background A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple ‘Google-style’ search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip. Methods We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements. Results A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence. Conclusions PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry 17 April 2015. Registration number: ISRCTN12742235 .
dc.fuente.origenBiomed Central
dc.identifier.citationHealth Research Policy and Systems. 2018 Mar 15;16(1):27
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12961-018-0299-8
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0299-8
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/26557
dc.issue.numeroNo. 27
dc.language.isoen
dc.pagina.final14
dc.pagina.inicio1
dc.revistaHealth Research Policy and Systemses_ES
dc.rightsacceso abierto
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s).
dc.subject.ddc610
dc.subject.deweyMedicina y saludes_ES
dc.subject.otherMedicina - Bibliografía - Metodologíaes_ES
dc.subject.otherMedicina - Bases de datos.es_ES
dc.titleA comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidencees_ES
dc.typeartículo
dc.volumenVol. 16
sipa.codpersvinculados11470
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
12961_2018_Article_299.pdf
Size:
1.06 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
0 B
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Artículos de revistas